Niall Dickson, Chief executive, King's Fund

The green paper doesn't deliver a single penny and the timing in some senses couldn't be worse. It's bad in terms of the political cycle, which means there isn't much incentive for a consensus. And it couldn't be worse in terms of the financial situation.

But there is a feeling in the sector that we really do have to use this opportunity. We are now providing less good and comprehensive care for older people than five years ago. And the danger is that if we have further delays in deciding on the right model things will just start slipping away.

The green paper's idea of a national service and entitlements represents a fundamental change from the settlement that emerged from Beveridge. It is significant even if the entitlement element turns out not to be very large.

The King's Fund has always believed that free care across the board, paid for by taxes, was not a feasible option, and it's even less feasible now. Most people should have built up assets over their lives, so it's reasonable to expect individuals as well as the state to contribute.

The great issue for the state is: how do you devise a system that doesn't get weighed down by its own bureaucracy? We've got to have a nimble, flexible system that people feel at home with and doesn't demean them.

Andrew Harrop, Head of policy, Age Concern and Help the Aged

We welcome the green paper's acceptance that there needs to be a new national offer, so there is consistency around the country in terms of eligibility for care and the standards people can expect.

We're less happy that it is predicated on the same amount of money being spent on service users as today, which we have argued is completely inadequate to meet older people's needs.

We're also concerned that using the attendance allowance to help fund social care would simply be robbing Peter to pay Paul. The partnership model is obviously an improvement on the current means-tested system, but it's quite probable that those with attendance allowance would lose more than they gain through the partnership model.

People could also be very upset to discover that accommodation costs aren't covered. To pay a big lump sum and then have to pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of pounds for their care home costs doesn't feel like an attractive proposition.

We would certainly favour a national system of entitlement. The postcode lottery in care is leading to some completely unjustifiable outcomes. People are struggling to move home because of arguments about funding between local authorities. That's frankly outrageous.

Stephen Haddrill, Director-general, Association of British Insurers

Only one in four people goes into [residential] care. People look at the prospects and take a bet they won't need it. But as the population gets older, the chances are more of us will.

For the insurance industry, the difficulty is in underwriting the risk when it's quite hard to predict what the costs will be in, say, 20 years. As a result the market for helping people save from early on has collapsed.

The green paper is a real improvement. Having a minimum state support overcomes some uncertainty. And the idea of "topping up" could lead to a risk-sharing deal between the industry and the government.

We would want to explore how the state contribution could be structured. In the government's model, the state provides the bottom tier. But you could flip that on its head so the individual provides the first amount and the state takes on funding above that.

Of the three funding options, I would favour the insurance model. Any idea of compulsion is going to be a hard sell. It's better to start on a voluntary basis and see how far we can go.

Can you do all this without new money? If they don't come up with medical solutions, the chances are more people will be in care for longer. If the government contribution is capped, and costs are growing, then the individual will have to find more.

Jenny Owen, President, Association of Directors of Adult Social Services

The green paper recognises that the current system is totally unsustainable. At the moment our system does no more than pick up people on very low levels of income and very high levels of need.

The option to have a national assessment system would obviously bring some consistency, and then if you want you could have a national allocation of money. But that also creates some problems because you can get a lot more for your money in some places than others. For instance, if you pay the same amount to authorities in London and Cumbria, will that result in the same service? All that needs teasing out very carefully.

It may well be possible that you could have some funding flows that were more specifically nationally directed, but still have money within the local authorities to help provide local solutions to local issues.

But whichever funding model is chosen, there will still be a substantial role for the local authority. We always need to have the ability to support flexibility and innovation in local communities.

My concern about a social insurance system is that people might not opt for it. We really need to think through what is most likely to bring money into the system. I suspect that means comprehensive insurance. I haven't seen much success for voluntary schemes.

Martin Green, Chief executive, English Community Care Association

At the moment the resources are not there to do the job. At the same time people's expectations are constantly rising around things like personalisation and bespoke services. There's a naive idea that these won't cost any more. But if you buy a bespoke suit it costs three times as much as an off-the-peg product and the same applies in social care. If we want this degree of personalisation, we have to provide the resources.

A partnership model of funding should at least make it clear that the level of services are dependent on how much people are prepared to invest in them.

I lean towards a national rather than a decentralised system because I'm so fed up with local authorities' failure to deliver fairness, clarity and consistency. The inconsistencies between one authority and another are never justified or explained. Instead, we have a range of idiosyncratic systems based on nothing more than the idiosyncratic views of a few officers and councillors.

The needs assessment should actually be determined by need, not age. It's outrageous that someone who has severe needs because of dementia is given £400 a week while a child with similarly severe needs, for instance because of a learning disability, will be told there is £3,000-£4,000 a week available.

Mike Smith, Chair, National Centre for Independent Living

There's good stuff in the green paper, including the national assessment process, the commitment to portability and that everyone should have certain rights. But there are also quite a few gaps.

In particular it focuses almost exclusively on meeting the needs of the ageing population. It is really light on content about younger disabled people.

We are especially concerned about the apparent assumption that working disabled people will either have to pay for some of their care (effectively a tax on being disabled) or take out insurance (which in reality won't be an option). Younger disabled people tend not to have reserves, and there should be no disincentive to gaining employment.

Treating everyone the same does not produce equality in terms of outcomes. The government has to accept that many people who are disabled need support simply to have the chance of being equal citizens. Unless that happens, it will never realise its objectives as set out in Improving the Life Chances of Disabled People and the Independent Living Strategy.

The paper limits debate by ruling out funding the new system through general taxation, because it says it's unfair to people of working age. But this is disingenuous. At some point these people will inherit the assets of the older generation. And social care could be funded through a new hypothecated [earmarked] wealth tax. All options should be explored.